Nick Anderson for December 21, 2010

If “they” want to get married and receive the same benefits as “us” so be it. Most call that equal rights.

I will marry 14 dogs and claim them as dependents. Cool!!

If Afghanistan and Iraq go worse then that are right now, I bet someone will find a way to blame it on DADT being repealed.

Has Fred Phelps died of a heart attack yet?

Polygamy’s in the Bible. King Solomon, for example, had hundreds. So that’s your own problem. People said the whole “dogs” and “polygamy” thing when black people wanted to marry white people. Same old tired bigotry.

The U.S. Constitution has proven difficult enough to interpret how one figures out what the Bible, in its many versions, says baffles me.

Polygamy is already practised by some mormons (from the christian right), if I’m not mistaken.

^Which basics are those, Shrimpy Puppy? Did you know there are two contradictory stories of creation?

^Creating is fun, it’s paying to raise them that’s expensive, where it becomes he said-she said? There are THOUSANDS of creation mythologies, actually, in cultures around the world. That “nakedness” Noah’s sons were offended by however, may have implied more than “translated”. “Don’t touch my junk.” is more than at TSA however, and as long as nobody does, there shouldn’t be a problem. If they DO- whether homo or hetero= they get the brig!

“Change you can believe in.”

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Thanks for clarifying, shrimpily. Though to be picky, there has been a good deal of fighting over many of the clauses, which is why the Creed was written in the first place. For example, there were various early forms of Christianity that had Jesus as human; others who had him as a sort of “enlightened” human with superpowers that others could learn, etc. Still a lot of variation out there.

“It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.”

I don’t think it will play out at all from now on. At the end of the day, I doubt anything will change.

“Now they will want to get married and draw extra allowances”

Wow, CBass. I’m not sure I see where your problem is with this. Is it that all soldiers are creepy socialists who unfairly want benefits for their spouses, and we shouldn’t let such leeches game our system? In that case we should deny benefits to any of those spongy spouses, gay or heterosexual.

Or is it that somehow a gay person who sacrifices to defend our country is a nondeserving louse, while non-gay soldiers are heroes worthy of our gratitude?

Please clarify.